THE RENAISSANCE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 88, 27 November 1911, Page 5

THE RENAISSANCE.

PART I. Nothing lias caused more dismay in the camp of the Prohibitionists than the discovery that, at this late hour in the conflict, they are waging against the principles of personal freedom, the very forces tney had confidently counted 'upon for their own support, have failed them,, and, indeed, nave been exercised in tiie defence of that liberty which tho Prohibitionist would seeiv to destroy. The forces referred to are the opinions of tho world’s greatest intellects —past and present —in all walks of life wiio have in the past, and are now, wedding the trenchant blade of logical and scientific criticism, to tiie 1 destruction of tiie Prohibitionists’ 1 superficial and childish sophistries. Tho great Renaissance of the 11th century, that humanistic movement beginning in Italy with Dante and his circle, with Potrarea and Boccaccio, with Giotto and Alicolo Pisano, was tho natural outcome and revulsion from the ignorance and savagery of tho early middle ages, and tne now Renaissance of this day, initiated by the world’s clearest thinkers, is a similar natural revulsion from tho ignorant and foolish crusade of persecution waged by tho Prohibition coterie.

In the early stages of this movement, tiio leaders in nil branches of learning and thought simply were unaware of its existence. However, even tne braying of asses, if persisted in, will needs attract the attention of even the most pre-occupied, and, unfortunately for the No-liicense Party, such attention uas attracted, with, tor them, disastrous results. Instead of finding the leaders of the world in Science, Art, Literature, Philosophy, Divinity, and Commerce endorsing their ill-digested, crude, and inept schemes of confiscation and tyranny, tnat party has been greatly astonisiicd ana, withal, dismayed, to find its arguments torn tfi shreds, its methods ridiculed and its morality questioned, by the merciless criticism unci irrebuttable conclusions of the keenest analytical minds of tne century. Prohibition is to-day advocated only by those who, by reason of their lack of education, can see no further than to-day, or by those who hope to see in its consummation some paltry financial personal benefit to themselves. It naturally follows that a comprehensive statement like tho above should be supported by incontrovertible argument. At least by an indication of the authority, or sources of authority, from which it can be supported, by those wiio have a mind to enquire fully into what is a practical difficulty of the hour. The authorities may lie succinctly grouped under the heads of the cniol spneres of moral, .mental and physical activity with which mankind is concerned, and first in order comes— The Church. —The churches which, in their own constitution claim to teach with authority—the Catholic and the Anglican—have, at tiie hands of their consecrated leaders, ever declaimed against the immortality of the co-ercive methods of the Prohibitionist. To them, with centuries of most carefully compiled, and, as carefully studied, records of” human nature at their disposal, with the leisured application of their greatest minds to these records, the conclusion lias been irresistibly borne, that the methods of fear, intimidation land compulsion will not change hum a p nature.,. Their Christian theology also directs, that in matters such as these, the weapons of the spirit are the only ones which it. is—not merely justifiable or expedient—but safe to employ in Any attempt towards the regeneration of the human moral being. As regards tho Non-conformist churches, they, have, in the past, taken somewhat different ground. This, from their constitutions, so* much based on' the principle of private jndg-. merit, , was perhaps inevitable, and, indeed, it may fairly bo argued that it was a necessary step in a process of evolution which has now’ readied a satisfactory stage. It is reassuring to find that the Non-conformist leaders are joining hands with their Apostolic brethren in acknowledging the futility, and admission of moral weakness, which recourse to legislation in this matter, admits. Jt will, no doubt, be argued that some Non-con-formist ministers, and oven some priests of the Anglican Church, have, in the past, and do now advocate the measures and tenets of the Prohibitionists. This is. freely admitted, but the answer is simple, though twofold. In a sparsely scattered country like New Zealand, so many thousands of miles from the world’s centres of culture and learning, the authority and power of the church is, to a certain extent, Weakened, and tho ministry is, in some cases, lax in discipline, tainted with the “legislative cureall” lesion, go prevalent in all infant communities, and not so keen in their perception of the danger to tho influence of their churches in the future, involved by the adoption of political means to cure public vice, as their leaders in the Old World and America are. The brightest and most eminent of the Non-conformist leaders at Home are, to-day, convinced of the hopelessness of fighting the devil with the arm of flesh instead of with the weapons of the Spirit, and they are opposing the methods and doctrines of Prohibition with all the means at their disposal. This change of thought is,an undoubted fact. It is curious that it is not more widely appreciated out here in New Zealand, but there is no doubt but that the influence will in clue time, reach, and be felt in, the Dominion. It is hardly necessary to say, here, that the churches have always, and it is to be hoped always will, use their influence and authority in advocating Temperance upon their people, and it should be remembered, in the application of the principle, that this extends not in drinking only, but in all tilings. The loaders of all tho churches have at last united in agreeing that force, applied to the moral being, cither openly fails, or,- if .it, outwardly succeeds, brings in its train tho worse ulcers and blemishes of hypocrisy, contempt of law, perjury, meanness, cowardice, and insincerity. For their own sakes, and for the sakes of their people, they have interpreted the writing on the wall. It reads: “The power that can change the moral nature of mankind” in the matter of intemperance, can surely change and control it in all things.” The power referred to is tho legislation fetish. What, then, the need of the churches at all? They are helpless and effete with their spiritual weapons and their moral training! Have we not Acts of Parliament to guide our conduct, to c'onservo our welfare, to punish our misdeeds, in short, to make ns perfect in character, as in all other things P The churches have seen the danger. They do not wish their heritage to lie taken from them and vested in the hands of tho member for the district. They do not wish to give up the tight for the salvation and reformation of .mankind. Above all, they do pot wash to confess themselves fainthearted, weary, and despairing of suc-

ccss in the task of Christian regeneration which lias been committed to their charge. Nor should they.* (To bo concluded.)